Author Topic: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT  (Read 41955 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #20 on: 09/15/2014 12:12 am »

1.  I think that will be a result of cheaper launch costs - right now the launch is a significant part of the cost of a "cheap" science mission (especially since they aren't launching them on Falcon 9).  If you could make it $10 million in exchange for much less reliability, that may not be worth it if the launch is $100 million plus.

2.  But if the launches were much cheaper... you might be able to make 3 cheaper spacecraft  instead of 1 more reliable one, and make up for lack of reliability with redundancy (send 3 copies of the same probe).

3.  As launches get cheaper the "cubesat"/smartphone electronics 'cheap' satellite mentality will be applied to bigger and more capable spacecraft, at some point overlapping with at least the lower end of 'official' science spacecraft (Discovery class etc.)

1.  That is only for a small portion of the missions.

2.  Nonsense.  Saving a few million isn't enough for more spacecraft.

3.  that mentality doesn't hold water. 

Offline Vultur

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #21 on: 09/15/2014 12:35 am »
1.  That is only for a small portion of the missions.

Yes, that's true - right now.

EDIT: But if missions become radically cheaper, to the point that people can crowdfund smallsats to the Moon or whatever, and far more agencies can afford to build and launch science spacecraft, the cheap missions will come to vastly outnumber the big missions.


Quote
2.  Nonsense.  Saving a few million isn't enough for more spacecraft.

I'm not talking about "a few million", I'm talking about at least order of magnitude lower launch costs.

And possibly more -- if they can get fully reusable F9 down to $5-$7 million long term as they've suggested, that's more than an order of magnitude (relative to preFalcon9), and fully reusable BFR should be cheaper per kg than fully reusable F9 due to economies of scale. Plus, on the BFR timescale you may have Skylon flying, too, and other companies attempting SpaceX-style reusability (or other types, who knows).

Quote
3.  that mentality doesn't hold water.

Why not? CubeSats are well established, and several satellites with smartphone electronics have flown. Obviously beyond the magnetosphere the radiation environment is harsher (although LEO is already significantly harsher than Earth's surface) so it won't be as cheap, but... And if it gets cheap enough you can accept lower reliability through launching multiple identical spacecraft.

I see no reason to think current costs are anywhere near the minimum, or even within an order of magnitude.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 12:42 am by Vultur »

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #22 on: 09/15/2014 03:32 am »
Probably we need an Elon v. 2 to revolutionize production methods for space probes and space telescopes!


We can stop with this type of nonsense

So let's say this BFR gets flying in 2025, which coincidentally is right around the time that China is supposed to surpass the US economy in size.  What sort of missions involving this giant LV do you think would interest either the US Air Force or NASA?  I can imagine a few science missions for NASA, but what of the Air Force?  Would such a capability ever tempt them to do something new in your opinion? 

Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Israel
  • Liked: 245
  • Likes Given: 593
Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #23 on: 09/15/2014 05:20 am »
Probably we need an Elon v. 2 to revolutionize production methods for space probes and space telescopes!


We can stop with this type of nonsense
http://www.planetaryresources.com/technology/
Space is hard immensely complex and high risk !

Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Israel
  • Liked: 245
  • Likes Given: 593
Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #24 on: 09/15/2014 05:52 am »
Before the Mars Colonial Transport vehicle can make its first crewed mission to mars, it will have to be well tested and proven for at least the same duration as a full two way trip. That means it will have to be fully crewed in LEO for more than a year, with multiple lunches and landings on earth to prove that its systems are space worthy.
This research and development will have to be self funded because launch revenues wont suffice.
The more I think of it, theres just no way around it -
If MCT is pursued, SpaceX will maintain their own private space station in LEO based on a precorsur MCT design and BFR.
Space is hard immensely complex and high risk !

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #25 on: 09/15/2014 06:27 am »

1.  I think that will be a result of cheaper launch costs - right now the launch is a significant part of the cost of a "cheap" science mission (especially since they aren't launching them on Falcon 9).  If you could make it $10 million in exchange for much less reliability, that may not be worth it if the launch is $100 million plus.

2.  But if the launches were much cheaper... you might be able to make 3 cheaper spacecraft  instead of 1 more reliable one, and make up for lack of reliability with redundancy (send 3 copies of the same probe).

3.  As launches get cheaper the "cubesat"/smartphone electronics 'cheap' satellite mentality will be applied to bigger and more capable spacecraft, at some point overlapping with at least the lower end of 'official' science spacecraft (Discovery class etc.)

1.  That is only for a small portion of the missions.

2.  Nonsense.  Saving a few million isn't enough for more spacecraft.

3.  that mentality doesn't hold water.

1.  What sorts of missions would be unaffected by an order of magnitude drop in launch costs?

2.  It's nonsense because you disagree that the savings can ever be  2/3 or 9/10 of the budget or because the demand is so inelastic that any savings would never be applied to more spacecraft?

3.  The mentality of trying to repurpose off the shelf tech from other uses or the mentality of economies of scale and iterative improvement?

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #26 on: 09/15/2014 11:03 am »
But if the launches were much cheaper... you might be able to make 3 cheaper spacecraft  instead of 1 more reliable one, and make up for lack of reliability with redundancy (send 3 copies of the same probe).

I think the most promising use of much lower launch costs would be to equip the spacecraft with larger propellant tanks and / or use a separate transfer stage. You could do this with bigger launchers, but since propellant is almost infinitely divisible, you could also use propellant transfer. No great need for a BFR.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline sheltonjr

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #27 on: 09/15/2014 04:12 pm »
Hyperion and I have similar specs for our notional MCT, so I think we are in the ballpark of what the MCT may be capable. I like to put numbers to my speculations to see if they pass the common sense test.

The idea being if you design an aircraft that can fly across the pacific (or Mars), It should be able to fly all the other possible missions. The difference being in space there is not always fuel at your destination.

My notional MCT is a upscale Dragon with a base diameter of 15 m, 20 m high with a 17.5 Degree side angle.
Its empty weight is 35 MT, can carry 65 MT of cargo/equipment in 940 m3 of volume and has tanks for 319 MT of CH4 & LOX Fuel.

It has 80 KW of solar power at 1 AU.

My MCT has 1 to many high thrust engines for about 150 MT of thrust for TMI, Mars Entry, Mars Launch and Earth Landing. It also has many low thrust simple engines for 12-55 MT of thrust for Mars Final Landing (may not be required) plus redundant RCS systems.

For Mars mission, the MCT launches 100 MT dry weight and 150 MT partial load of fuel based on using the fully reusable 250 MT BFR launch vehicle. It meets up with a second refueling BFR to top off its fuel before its TMI burn.
It has 5.3 Km/s DV to Mars and after refueling on Mars with 10 MT of return cargo, It has 7.8 Km/s return DV to Earth.


So I ran two sets of numbers of the available DV with different cargo masses.

The first is a single BFR launch with partial fuel. So the fuel would be 250 MT-(35MT+Cargo). example. 30 MT cargo flight would launch with 250-(35+30) = 185 MT of fuel.

The second estimate is fully fueling the MCT with the refueling BFR after a partial burn to a higher orbit to maximize DV. This can add approximately .75 km/s of additional DV.

All calculations are based on no refueling after leaving LEO.

MissionDV Req (km/s)Partial Fuel Cargo (MT)Full Fuel Cargo (MT)Notes
LEO->EML1->Earth4.145115Round Trip Cargo
LEO->EML2->Earth3.7655115Round Trip Cargo
LEO->EML4/5->Earth4.833085Round Trip Cargo
LEO->GEO->Earth3.93095Drop Cargo at GEO
LEO->LLO->Earth4.042590Drop Cargo at LLO
LEO->EML2->EML1->Earth4.8830115Round Trip Cargo
LEO->Moon->Earth8.67N/A8Return Cargo 2 MT
LEO->SEL1->Earth5.52065DV Correct??
LEO->SEL2->Earth5.52065DV Correct??

Base on the above, my conclusion is that the MCT can serve some very useful missions in cis-lunar space.

Cargo MCT would be unmanned, while Crew/cargo MCT could perform the mission with crew.

Landing on the Moon cargo capability was a disappointing 8 MT, and other Moon specific requirements may not be worth it.

The MCT could be a very powerful and capable for cis-lunar space and the local solar system.

Here is a link to my spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1e7uz5Tt8Y_duvBvFXkPxhj0IuNQD-as6bZqghScQM2E/edit?usp=sharing

I hope you find this interesting and if I have made any obvious mistakes.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #28 on: 09/15/2014 04:52 pm »
@sheltonjr

Very interesting.

Quote
landing on the Moon cargo capability was a disappointing 8 MT, and other Moon specific requirements may not be worth it.

Not disappointing to me at all. It would be enough to do both crew and supply transport to a base.

If necessary for station building a tanker could be sent along to refuel after TLI. The tanker needs little fuel for direct earth return after a loop around the moon. That should enable landing of large habitats and other big equipment.

What are those other moon specific requirements? Engine throttling for landing in lunar gravity may be a problem. Environmental problems may be mitigated by landing early in the moon day and departing before night.

Edit typo.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 04:54 pm by guckyfan »

Offline sheltonjr

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #29 on: 09/15/2014 07:05 pm »
@sheltonjr

Very interesting.

Quote
landing on the Moon cargo capability was a disappointing 8 MT, and other Moon specific requirements may not be worth it.

Not disappointing to me at all. It would be enough to do both crew and supply transport to a base.

If necessary for station building a tanker could be sent along to refuel after TLI. The tanker needs little fuel for direct earth return after a loop around the moon. That should enable landing of large habitats and other big equipment.

What are those other moon specific requirements? Engine throttling for landing in lunar gravity may be a problem. Environmental problems may be mitigated by landing early in the moon day and departing before night.


guckyfan, Yeah, once you start adding refueling tankers and depots at other cis-lunar locations it really opens a lot of exciting HSF possibilities even though the base MCT will be able to do quite a lot.

Before the Mars Colonial Transport vehicle can make its first crewed mission to mars, it will have to be well tested and proven for at least the same duration as a full two way trip. That means it will have to be fully crewed in LEO for more than a year, with multiple lunches and landings on earth to prove that its systems are space worthy.
This research and development will have to be self funded because launch revenues wont suffice.
The more I think of it, theres just no way around it -
If MCT is pursued, SpaceX will maintain their own private space station in LEO based on a precorsur MCT design and BFR.

Based on my post above with MCT capabilities in cis-lunar space I would imagine the BFR/MCT build up as follows.

1) Launch BFR with integrated second stage refueling depot with fuel. repeat as required
2) Launch BFR with unmanned MCT and attempt refueling from depot. Either way conduct 6 month checkout from LEO-EML1-EML2 with 30MT of revenue paying payload to deploy. EDL back to Earth. repeat as required
3) Launch BFR with manned MCT for 9 month checkout in cis-lunar space with up to 85MT of cargo. Visit space stations ect...
4) Launch BFR with ISRU MCT to Mars. Verify Mars EDL and robotic ISRU for CH4 & LOX. repeat as required
5) Launch BFR with cargo MCT to Mars. Verify EDL, refueling and Earth return. repeat as required.
6) Launch BFR with manned MCT to Mars. 30 Day Stay, MCT returns to earth. Explorers remain.

Notes.
1) ISRU MCT has MCT form factor but contains ISRU equipment to extract water out of the air/ground and fill tanks. Cargo includes robotic rovers, forklifts, bulldozer/excavator.
2) Cargo MCT has MCT form factor that only carries cargo that can be removed by robotic equipment
3) Manned MCT support 8-10 colonist, 65 MT pressurized and unpressurized cargo.

The "Repeat as Required" could get really expensive if they have failures. But I think without too many failures and selling large payload capability as they go could possibly finance their vision.

Having a capability to have a manned presence in cis-lunar space with a large payload capability opens up a lot of exploration and servicing missions.

Offline Dudely

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
  • Canada
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #30 on: 09/16/2014 11:52 am »
I have imagined what the future could look like. . .

2020 - Property rights in space are developed

2030 - in-situ asteroid fuel production is developed. Significant scale is reached by end-of-decade.

2040 - price of hydrogen fuel in LEO plummets as tankers arrive back from NEO asteroids. Used to float industry production platforms in roughly the same sort of orbit as the ISS. Platforms, tooling, and many of the production materials are lofted by reusable BFR which should be cheap by now. Nanotechnology production moves onto these platforms first, followed by other high-tech industries like chip manufacturers.

2050 - Workers begin to move off-world onto rotating industrial platforms developed by former asteroid fuel mining companies possibly in conjunction with mining companies or other high-tech companies. Major governments could view these as proxy wars of industrial might. Each platform is moved into an orbit a few hundred km from a metal-rich asteroid in the asteroid belt or in a NEO. The platforms would be used to oversee the robotic mining operations, to do science, and to create "value added" products from the raw materials mined. Key here will be the ability for someone to invest in space without the need for the investment to produce a product for Earth- the promise of continued business in space means that a mining company in space could avoid the troublesome problem of returning material to Earth and focus on building out more infrastructure.


That's what I think could happen excluding the Moon and Mars.

Offline Jet Black

Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #31 on: 09/16/2014 01:29 pm »
You could probably do direct injection to anything within, say, Saturn's orbit, and minimize the gravity assist flybys on missions to Uranus and beyond. Alternatively, you could still use flybys liberally and just have an absurdly huge mass budget for your spacecraft.

I'd go for the absurdly huge mass budget to get more varied and better sensors and tools up there. One of the really nice things about having (a) cheap rockets and (b) a giant mass budget is the ability to have many more disposable components i.e. something that you drop into atmospheres which sends data on the way in, or ground penetrators which can smash into surfaces, revealing the underlying materials and structure.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 01:32 pm by Jet Black »
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman

Offline Jet Black

Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #32 on: 09/16/2014 01:33 pm »
I have imagined what the future could look like. . .

2020 - Property rights in space are developed


This is going to  be a really odd one; rights are only as useful as your ability to defend and enforce them. It's also rather off topic so I won't go into it.

Edit/CR: Yes, developing property rights is hardly a mission for the BFR or MCT! Others to note.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2014 07:07 am by CuddlyRocket »
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #33 on: 09/16/2014 02:54 pm »
On the science side, you could just look at people (i.e. Boeing) have proposed using SLS for. So, very large space telescopes, orbiter missions to the Ice Giants, flotilla missions to Jupiter or Saturn, sample return from locations on the Moon or Mars that are inaccessible to any human missions.

One fun case study would be a Mercury sample return. The spacecraft itself would have to advanced to survive on Mercury's surface (probably land on the the night side; cold is easier than heat), and then need massive amounts of delta v to to get back from Mercury.

Offline Dudely

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
  • Canada
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #34 on: 09/17/2014 12:00 pm »
I have imagined what the future could look like. . .

2020 - Property rights in space are developed


This is going to  be a really odd one; rights are only as useful as your ability to defend and enforce them. It's also rather off topic so I won't go into it.

Edit/CR: Yes, developing property rights is hardly a mission for the BFR or MCT! Others to note.

No, I'm serious.

If you had no BFR or if everyone had a BFR then you would have a point. But the BFR is exactly what will enable property rights for the same reason sturdy wooden ships enabled north american property rights. If a BFR delivered a mining operation to an asteroid in NEO who is going to physically stop them from claiming it as their own? There would be no one willing to spend the money.

Of course, the colonization of the Americas didn't exactly go smoothly so maybe that's not saying much :D.

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 711
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #35 on: 09/17/2014 12:33 pm »
I have imagined what the future could look like. . .

2020 - Property rights in space are developed


This is going to  be a really odd one; rights are only as useful as your ability to defend and enforce them. It's also rather off topic so I won't go into it.

Edit/CR: Yes, developing property rights is hardly a mission for the BFR or MCT! Others to note.

No, I'm serious.

If you had no BFR or if everyone had a BFR then you would have a point. But the BFR is exactly what will enable property rights for the same reason sturdy wooden ships enabled north american property rights. If a BFR delivered a mining operation to an asteroid in NEO who is going to physically stop them from claiming it as their own? There would be no one willing to spend the money.

Of course, the colonization of the Americas didn't exactly go smoothly so maybe that's not saying much :D.
If what is on asteroid is worth recovering for the price of BFR development, actually plenty of people would willing to spend the money. :/
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline Dudely

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
  • Canada
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #36 on: 09/17/2014 01:14 pm »
I have imagined what the future could look like. . .

2020 - Property rights in space are developed


This is going to  be a really odd one; rights are only as useful as your ability to defend and enforce them. It's also rather off topic so I won't go into it.

Edit/CR: Yes, developing property rights is hardly a mission for the BFR or MCT! Others to note.

No, I'm serious.

If you had no BFR or if everyone had a BFR then you would have a point. But the BFR is exactly what will enable property rights for the same reason sturdy wooden ships enabled north american property rights. If a BFR delivered a mining operation to an asteroid in NEO who is going to physically stop them from claiming it as their own? There would be no one willing to spend the money.

Of course, the colonization of the Americas didn't exactly go smoothly so maybe that's not saying much :D.
If what is on asteroid is worth recovering for the price of BFR development, actually plenty of people would willing to spend the money. :/

No, they wouldn't, because here is how the actual real-life conversation would go:

Engineer1: "Hey there is an asteroid with some valuable stuff on it, want to give me money to go get it?"
Investor: "Sure, what's your plan?"
Engineer1: *shows nice plan*
Investor: "Ok, here is some money"
*Mining operation is launched*

Engineer2: "Hey there is an asteroid with some cool stuff on it, want to give me money to go get it? Only problem is there is already someone there mining it."
Investor: "Why don't you just pick a different asteroid? I won't give you any of my money to bicker over space dirt. Get out of my office."

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #37 on: 09/17/2014 01:18 pm »
I have imagined what the future could look like. . .

2020 - Property rights in space are developed


This is going to  be a really odd one; rights are only as useful as your ability to defend and enforce them. It's also rather off topic so I won't go into it.

Edit/CR: Yes, developing property rights is hardly a mission for the BFR or MCT! Others to note.

No, I'm serious.

If you had no BFR or if everyone had a BFR then you would have a point. But the BFR is exactly what will enable property rights for the same reason sturdy wooden ships enabled north american property rights. If a BFR delivered a mining operation to an asteroid in NEO who is going to physically stop them from claiming it as their own? There would be no one willing to spend the money.

Of course, the colonization of the Americas didn't exactly go smoothly so maybe that's not saying much :D.

Not to turn this into to another "space property rights" debate but you've got the same misconception that most do:
1) "Property" rights are not and have never been required for resource exploitation in space. If as you example someone mined a NEO asteroid the resources would belong to them.

2) ALL "property" rights develolve from prior government claim to ownership. To develop, aquire and distribute "property rights" require dividing the solar system and all its possible resources and allocating them to some "government" nation-state or supra-nation-state. Since about 2/3rds of the worlds governments don't actually RECOGNIZE personal property "rights" in the first place and the numerous legal and moral issues of only allowing certain nations to "own" the Solar System I'd have thought by now the property-rights-are-required advocates would have begun to realize how silly the "plan" sounds.

3) Currently if you extract resources in space they are YOURS to do with what you will. If you build/land/whatever a pressurized space on a solar body be it asteroid, Moon, Mars, etc it and a "buffer-zone" around it are YOURS to do with as you please under the guidance and laws/regulations of the nation-state government under which you launched. The "land" on a body has no inherient value, what gives it "value" is the built-up infrastructure and resources available no the "land" itself. "Property rights" don't make any sense in the context and never have.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 711
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #38 on: 09/17/2014 01:22 pm »
I have imagined what the future could look like. . .

2020 - Property rights in space are developed


This is going to  be a really odd one; rights are only as useful as your ability to defend and enforce them. It's also rather off topic so I won't go into it.

Edit/CR: Yes, developing property rights is hardly a mission for the BFR or MCT! Others to note.

No, I'm serious.

If you had no BFR or if everyone had a BFR then you would have a point. But the BFR is exactly what will enable property rights for the same reason sturdy wooden ships enabled north american property rights. If a BFR delivered a mining operation to an asteroid in NEO who is going to physically stop them from claiming it as their own? There would be no one willing to spend the money.

Of course, the colonization of the Americas didn't exactly go smoothly so maybe that's not saying much :D.
If what is on asteroid is worth recovering for the price of BFR development, actually plenty of people would willing to spend the money. :/

No, they wouldn't, because here is how the actual real-life conversation would go:

Engineer1: "Hey there is an asteroid with some valuable stuff on it, want to give me money to go get it?"
Investor: "Sure, what's your plan?"
Engineer1: *shows nice plan*
Investor: "Ok, here is some money"
*Mining operation is launched*

Engineer2: "Hey there is an asteroid with some cool stuff on it, want to give me money to go get it? Only problem is there is already someone there mining it."
Investor: "Why don't you just pick a different asteroid? I won't give you any of my money to bicker over space dirt. Get out of my office."

Yeah...and piracy and conflict diamonds are just a myth and never happened in history!! Fairy tales like the flood and gorgons!!

*seriously, if your plan for an investor is - if i just go into an undefended territory that has no space army or space police or clear laws and take some stuff... and no one is going to stop me! - you'll get kicked out of his office faster. Places that are without an effective formal state, do form a sort of property rights, or turf defended at the the point of a gun. See the Mexican Cartels for reference.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2014 01:29 pm by Darkseraph »
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Alternative missions for BFR & MCT
« Reply #39 on: 09/17/2014 01:29 pm »
No, they wouldn't, because here is how the actual real-life conversation would go:

Engineer1: "Hey there is an asteroid with some valuable stuff on it, want to give me money to go get it?"
Investor: "Sure, what's your plan?"
Engineer1: *shows nice plan*
Investor: "Ok, here is some money"
*Mining operation is launched*

Engineer2: "Hey there is an asteroid with some cool stuff on it, want to give me money to go get it? Only problem is there is already someone there mining it."
Investor: "Why don't you just pick a different asteroid? I won't give you any of my money to bicker over space dirt. Get out of my office."

Dudley you realize your scenerio here pretty much proves why "property-rights" would have no effect under the given circumstances? In the example "Company-A" got to the asteroid first and began extracting resources and does not now or will ever "own" the asteroid just the resources they mine.

You also miss the point that in fact the second scenerio could just as easily have Company B land on the opposite side of the afore mentioned asteroid and begin extraction operations there. Since Company A has "proven" there are extractable resources present the incentive to invest in Company B is higher, not lower as you suggest.

Even more "specific" to the case of BFR/MCT if SpaceX is operating them as they plan too then they would in fact encourage both Company A and Company B to set up operations as they would then have two sources of income for transportation of equipment, personnel, and resources to and from the asteroid.

You are however correct, no one is going to "pay" for the privilage of arguing who "owns" space dirt...

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1